Jump to content

User talk:Vanamonde93/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36→Archive 40

Closing a RfC

Why did you close that RfC although you are involved in that discussion?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, thank you for closing the RfC, in an intelligent, cogent and comprehensive manner. Your uninvolved status as an admin is without reproach, as far as I'm concerned. You have my full support and thanks. El_C 22:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
El C, thanks, much appreciated. SharabSalam: I have participated in that discussion in an administrative capacity, giving general advice about policy, but not taking a specific position on the content. Please read through WP:INVOLVED very carefully, and if you still think something I did was inappropriate, please raise it with me here, or at the administrator noticeboard, if you feel it to be necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus in Iran/Saff V. and Pahlevun

Hello, I just wanted to mention how the Wiki page about coronavirus in Iran has been hijacked by a group of Iranian users (or multiple alternate accounts of the same user, it is quite possible) attempting to censor the misgivings about Iran's obviously fake numbers on the coronavirus epidemic there. The lead sections, for instance, contains a line referring to a 2 March WHO statement claiming that there was nothing wrong with Iran's numbers, which is outdated and contradicted by more recent WHO statements that claim that actual numbers are likely five times higher. Attempts at updating this, deleting that outdated and incorrect claims, have been sistematically reverted by these users, that have also deleted several lines and links referring to outside sources that estimate a far heavier toll in Iran. Iran claims to have far less cases than Italy, Spain, Germany, France, and the USA, and less deaths than Italy, Spain, and France (soon enough the USA as well), despite the outbreak in Iran starting at the same time as Italy and much earlier than in the other countries, and Iran not implementing a national lockdown unlike them (on the contrary, Iran early on denied the outbreak and held elections anyway). So, a few days ago I reported these users (one of which is User:Saff V. who has already been blocked for vandalism and non-neutral edit warring on Iran-related wiki pages; another is User talk:Pahlevun, also responsible for this kind of behaviour) for edit warring on the Administrators' page, and? I got blocked immediately, without even a discussion! --Pesqara (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Pesqara: You were blocked by a checkuser for editing logged out. If you think that was unfair for whatever reason, there's no point in telling me that; I'm not a checkuser, and cannot help you. If you are concerned with the neutrality of the article, please update the article using reliable sources, and if you are reverted, post on the talk page of the article, with the sources that you have. I am seeing all of one post from you on that page, and it was a complaint without any sources supporting it. I am monitoring that talk page, and will take any necessary action. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, the article talk page is the place to address these concerns. I'll try to keep an eye, also. El_C 17:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Repeatedly and irrelevantly pointing out policies and guidelines, killing the users' time by lengthy, groundless discussions on talk pages and pushing them beyond their limits, blocking the normal flow of information. Looking for diffs? Just go for any random edit. Those running such "genuinely independent online media outlets" [1], [2] won't simply forget little old wiki. MS 会話 18:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ms96: I cannot make head or tail of your post. Whose supposed misbehavior are you talking about here? Pesqara, Pahlevun, Saff V., El C, myself, or someone else? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

April–May 2020 GAN Backlog Drive

Harrias talk 06:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

About an edit which you reversed

Hi Vanamonde93. Hope you are safe and healthy This is about an edit you reversed. Please see here en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=948177323&diffmode=visual. I would like to emphasise that it can not be categorised a silly as the section and sub-section header is Government Responses and Communication. Having those headings, the heading Prime Minister Modi indicates that it is a response from the prime minister. I have not done without checking other articles. This is for your reference 👉 2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_the_United_States#Communication. I would like to emphasise that the phrase Response from the is redundant as the section and sub-section header already says that. Please be rest assured that I would not revert the edit as I am not here for WP:EW. Also, I request you to create a discussion in the talk page as there are other editors who have been contributing from the start of creation of the article who want to participate in the discussion and share their thoughts. Thank you for understanding and 'As always, please stay safe and healthy. Let's fight COVID-19'. SaiP (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@SaiP: I called it "silly" because the subsequent sections also document things in which Modi was involved. As such it's a meaningless distinction. The other subsection titles cover topics of communication; the first is general; it needs no title. The reason a separate section exists in the US article is that there's a fair number of sources commenting on the administration's response as distinct from Trump's own response. As far as I have seen, there's no evidence of such in the Indian case; sources treat the government's response as a coherent whole. As such, a "Prime Minister Modi" section would make sense under communication if, and only if, the other subsections were about communications from other sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Wish you safety and health

Dear fellow editor. The world is struggling to stay safe from the harms of a some tens of nano-meters sized virus. I wish you and your dear ones full safety from the dangers of this unilateral love! Regards. --Mhhossein talk 08:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, and the same to you. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Hunter (lyricist)

On 13 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Robert Hunter (lyricist), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Grateful Dead lyricist Robert Hunter (pictured) drew artistic inspiration from hallucinations that he experienced while taking psychedelic drugs in a program covertly sponsored by the CIA? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Hunter (lyricist). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Robert Hunter (lyricist)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

--valereee (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what headline to give to this

Hi Vanamonde, after consulting with you, I went ahead with the consensus on the MEK page. However, SharabSalam reverted saying "Sorry, no consesus for this merge and those sources are needed". SharabSalam also rejected the sources provided on the Qasem Soleimani talk page. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Consensus is subject to change, Stefka Bulgaria. If more users join a dispute and disagree with your proposed edits, that's just the way of things sometimes. Particularly on Qasem Soleimani, where the dispute really is about the relative prominence of views in sources. Start an RfC, or take this to DRN. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
The talk page discussion was opened over 10 days ago. SharabSalam never participated or addressed the points raised (by myself or anyone else), just rolled back the whole edit and then left a passing comment somewhere on the talk page saying "Absolutely disagree with this merge. Two different subjects cant be merged into one section. Also, allegations? Thats unsourced. All reliable scholar sources call them cult, its not an allegations, its a fact." which doesn't address anything that was discussed in that discussion. Is that an appropriate revert? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Stefka Bulgaria, First of all you need consensus for that disruptive merge. Merging two different subjects together is absolutely unacceptable.

"SharabSalam's also rejected the sources provided on the Qasem Soleimani talk page"

  • This proves that you are making a WP:Pointy argument, you even went to Trump's article and said you want to add cult to it. You are comparing apples with oranges here. The MEK's cultish terror behavior is described and discussed in detail in multiple high-quality sources. It's not passing mentions in media outlets.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • This is fairly obviously a content dispute in which both of you have strong feelings. Take your disagreement to the relevant talk page, please. SharabSalam, I would expect you to substantiate that point with reliable sources. Stefka, the strongest reason you have for merging content is redundancy; please substantiate, in detail, the redundancy issue on the talk page. If you can't come to a consensus on the talk page (and I'd be very surprised if you do; I haven't yet seen any of you make any substantive compromise there) please open an RfC, and break down your proposal into parts, so that some of it may reach consensus even if all of it does not. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde, Mhhossein has been removing information that points to Ruhollah Khomeini and Qasem Soleimani having a personality cult. On the other hand, has been trying to add multiple cult/cult personality quotes into the People's Mojahedin of Iran article; something that's already covered and repeated throughout the article. After a week of not answering to the article's Talk pages, Mhhossein's argument is that he removed that information from those articles because "cult personality" is a "perjorative" term backed by questionable sources. In the Ruhollah Khomeini article, for example, the sources backing up this statement included the following: [1], [2], [3], [4],[5], [6], [7],[8]. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

References

References

  1. ^ Ervand Abrahamian (1992). The Iranian Mojahedin (reprint ed.). Yale University Press. p. 255. ISBN 9780300052671.
  2. ^ Michael Chertoff (2011). Homeland Security: Assessing the First Five Years. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 27. ISBN 9780812205886.
  3. ^ Chetan Bhatt (1997). Liberation and Purity: Race, New Religious Movements and the Ethics of Postmodernity (illustrated, reprint ed.). Taylor & Francis. p. 141. ISBN 9781857284232.
  4. ^ Baqer Moin (1999). Khomeini: Life of the Ayatollah (illustrated ed.). I.B.Tauris. p. 200. ISBN 9781850431282.
  5. ^ Sivan, Emmanuel; Friedman, Menachem, eds. (1990). Religious Radicalism and Politics in the Middle East (illustrated ed.). State University of New York Press. p. 68. ISBN 9780791401583.
  6. ^ Barry Rubin (2015). The Middle East: A Guide to Politics, Economics, Society and Culture. Routledge. p. 427. ISBN 9781317455783.
  7. ^ Mikaberidze, Alexander, ed. (2011). Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical Encyclopedia [2 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. p. 483. ISBN 9781598843378.
  8. ^ Arshin Adib-Moghaddam (2014). A Critical Introduction to Khomeini (illustrated ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 305. ISBN 9781107012677.
Please present your sources on the talk pages of those articles, and let's see what Mhhossein has to say about them. Embedded quotes will be helpful. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
[3]. --Mhhossein talk 11:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: I don't understand what point you are making; your diff shows Stefka removing an unnecessary signature. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I am seeing a synthetic signature. --Mhhossein talk 12:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: Please explain in more detail. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I was not actually pinged. --Mhhossein talk 11:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: You were not pinged where? By me? By Stefka? Why would Stefka ping you? Please explain yourself. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm also at a loss. Mhhossein, your comments are too terse to be useful. El_C 18:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Nothing important, actually it is not important any longer. It is not an extraordinary expectation to ask for ping when you're being talked about. --Mhhossein talk 06:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Mhhossein, I rarely ping people I know are already watching a conversation so as not to be intrusive. When I do do so, it's often for emphasis. Anyway, each editor is entitled to their own good faith approach. El_C 13:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED MeK

Your WP:INVOLVED comments like

  • Since Stefka Bulgaria has drawn attention to that section; it is critically important that the "ideology" section only contain material the relevance of which has been established by reliable sources. In other words, sources need to have stated clearly that the details of that marriage are relevant to the "Ideological revolution and women's rights" theme in the MEK's ideology. Otherwise, the content more likely belongs in the biographies of the individuals mentioned.
  • @Saff V.: If I thought you were uninterested in improving the article, I would have TBANned you. I am warning you (all of you) instead only because I still think you can make worthwhile improvements.
  • You have not substantiated those objections enough for them to carry weight. If you want them to count for anything, please discuss in detail, with reference to the sources, why the material should not be trimmed. Remember that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion
  • You should have not closed that RfC. Do you think there isn't any other admin or editor to close that discussion? You know this is a highly controversial topic as this terrorist group that is supported by Americans is responsible for killing millions of innocent people. Your provocative close of that RfC should be your last close of RfCs in that talk page.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    @SharabSalam: These comments are a) explaining relevant policy, b) explaining the rationale for sanctions and warnings, c) explaining how arguments are given weight when consensus is assessed, and d) closing a nasty RfC that most editors would have stayed away from. These are all things that are part of acting in an administrative capacity in a contentious area. I intend to continue doing all of these things until and unless someone who actually does not have an axe to grind here tells me I have lost perspective. If you think I have overstepped, I am going to ask, for the third time, to take your issues to AN or ARBCOM. I do not want to be badgered about it in a forum where nothing relevant can actually be done. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    [T]his terrorist group that is supported by Americans is responsible for killing millions of innocent people — perhaps the OP is simply too close to this subject, Vanamonde... El_C 18:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    @El C: Yes, I rather suspect they are. If they continue their belligerent approach, they're likely looking at a boomerang. Making wild accusations against me is the thing I'm least likely to sanction someone for (not because I'm involved per se, but because accusations of impropriety are harder to make if someone else is dealing with it) so ironically, this particular incident is what I'm most likely to step away from. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    As I made clear elsewhere, having been attacked by the OP on multiple occasions does not make me, myself, involved with respect to their editing. That's not how WP:INVOLVED works. The fact that I have chosen to stay away from them has been by choice alone. But I may choose to act, at any time, to enforce policy violations on their part, including but not limited to tendentious editing. El_C 18:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    Precisely. I tried to tell them as much; let's hope they've gotten the message. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    FYI, following Barca's ANI report, I have topic banned SharabSalam from the IRANPOL topic area. El_C 06:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
I know I don't say this enough, and there are reasons why I haven't, but your assistance in IRANPOL has been nothing short of extraordinary. Thank you for taking the time; thank you for listening to all sides carefully; thank you for not letting attackers try to intimidate you; thank you for sticking to your values; thank you... Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Well deserved. Thanks for picking up the slack in a major, holistic way, Vanamonde. El_C 12:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, both. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 May newsletter

The second round of the 2020 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 75 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top ten contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 186 good articles achieved in total by contestants, and the 355 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

  • New York (state) Epicgenius, with 2333 points from one featured article, forty-five good articles, fourteen DYKs and plenty of bonus points
  • England Gog the Mild, with 1784 points from three featured articles, eight good articles, a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews and lots of bonus points
  • Botswana The Rambling Man, with 1262 points from two featured articles, eight good articles and a hundred good article reviews
  • Somerset Harrias, with 1141 points from two featured articles, three featured lists, ten good articles, nine DYKs and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews
  • England Lee Vilenski with 869 points, Gondor Hog Farm with 801, Venezuela Kingsif with 719, Cascadia (independence movement) SounderBruce with 710, United States Dunkleosteus77 with 608 and Mexico MX with 515.

The rules for featured article reviews have been adjusted; reviews may cover three aspects of the article, content, images and sources, and contestants may receive points for each of these three types of review. Please also remember the requirement to mention the WikiCup when undertaking an FAR for which you intend to claim points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coronavirus pandemic anti-Muslim riots in India

Hey Vanamonde! As you know, you voted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coronavirus pandemic anti-Muslim riots in India, which was ultimately closed as delete and redirect. I have contacted the closer regarding the close a few days ago, but s/he hasn't been active since. However, I'd love your input on my concerns as well (together with the closer's comments, in case s/he is active in the coming days) before I may take the AfD to DRV. In particular, these are my concerns:

  1. Many delete !votes just call the page a "hoax", either without any evidence, or by citing the "riot" part - which had already been taken care of - which means that at least some delete !votes can be given less weight.
  2. A growing group of editors either chose "merge" as their first choice, or - like you - put it in as one of two options. This group particularly grew towards the end of the AfD (2 in the last 24h), which suggests a relist may have been a good option to create a clearer consensus either for or against merging.
  3. The author's reasoning for not closing to merge (TNT) has not actually been brought forth during the debate (for as far as I can see), maybe in part because of a lack of discussion about the merge proposal (which would be another reason for a relist).

In conclusion, I felt the AfD should have been relisted, or possibly closed as "no consensus", though a relist would be much more sensible. Do you agree with my concerns? --MrClog (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@MrClog: That discussion was a disaster, as contentious matters in south asian politics tend to be; the signal-to-noise ratio is poor, and policy tends to play second-fiddle to POV. The argument to keep or merge, though, was undermined somewhat by the fact that the page, too, was a disaster. As such my argument that there was substantial source material covering the topic (which is true) was undercut by the fact that the source material was poorly represented in the article itself. So my advice would be to not waste your time rehashing any of this, but to rewrite the content in draftspace, add all the necessary RS, and then assess whether it deserves a merger or a standalone article. The TNT argument was what tipped the scales at AfD; there's no clear consensus against the topic's notability, just a consensus that the page as it stood did not belong on Wikipedia (and to be clear, that conclusion is warranted). If you would undertake to do that, I am happy to provide a copy of the deleted page, and would do my best to assist with the rewrite (which would need to be comprehensive), though I cannot promise the latter. I hope that makes sense. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, if you could move the content to User:MrClog/CoronaIslamophobia, that'd be lovely. I could probably rewrite somewhere tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. You are free to help, of course. --MrClog (talk) 11:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
@MrClog: done. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Polish Holocaust articles

Hi Vanamonde, I don't know whether you're aware of the background to my concern about the Kot page. I'm also pinging El C.

Anything on WP to do with Polish-Jewish relations during the Holocaust has been troubled for years. I've mostly stayed away from it because trying to fix those articles is an enormous time sink. On 28 February this year, an article by the Holocaust historian Jan Grabowski, in the Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza, alleged that Polish nationalists are falsifying history on the English Wikipedia. As examples, he mentioned Jedwabne pogrom, Polish Righteous Among the Nations, Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust, and Szmalcownik (links to versions from that time).

Since then, I've been trying to pay more attention, but it does seem impossible to effect real change. You're faced with walls of text and reverting if you try. That's why I'm concerned to see the Kot situation, where source material that should so obviously be included was deliberately omitted. I was hoping Smallbones might be willing to write something for the Signpost about Grabowski's article or ask Grabowski to do so. We need more eyes on those articles. SarahSV (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

As I've indirectly mentioned Piotrus, I should ping him. SarahSV (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we're making progress with Kot though, Sarah. In any case, I'm looking forward to seeing your proposals on how to improve the article further. As for your more general point, I share your concerns, and am at your disposal if you run into difficulties in this fraught topic area. El_C 04:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
El C, thank you for offering that. I don't think I can make any more proposals about Kot, because I've spent too much time on it. That's the problem; it's all so time-consuming. We need a group of experienced editors who will start putting those pages on their watchlists so that faster consensus can be reached about anything tricky. SarahSV (talk) 04:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Anytime, Sarah. I understand you're feeling exasperated, however. Again, if you identify any such articles that I should add to my (hilarious) watchlist, please don't hesitate to let me know. El_C 04:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Ha ha, I cut mine back years ago. It's very liberating. It means I can never find anything, mind you. SarahSV (talk) 05:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Whereas I am finding everything and nothing at the same time. I've crossed the 88,888 threshold a few days ago, btw! El_C 06:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the ping. I actually talked to Grabowski in person (well, on Facebook and in a 1h+ phone conversation). And IIRC actually I also directly suggested to him that writing an-op piece for The Signpost might be a good idea too if he wants to engage with our community. As I said in my reply to his piece, published in the same venue ([4]), he is certainly an expert historian, which is why I asked and got his permission to quote his reviews of the articles he reviewed on their talk, which I have done so shortly after his article was published ex here (I also believe it was me who alerted the English Wikipedia community to his views). Unfortunately, he doesn't understand well how Wikipedia works (throughout my conversation with him, I found out that he 1) was not aware that any academic studies of Wikipedia were published 2) was not aware of the existence of userpages or talk pages 3) he was not aware that there are some Wikipedia editors who are not anonymous and 4) suspected that the Polish government is sponsoring a propaganda program, effectively hiring people to write articles on English Wikipedia. I asked him several times to consider joining us directly as an editor, but he refused; unfortunately he considers contributing to Wikipedia not a good use of his time. And as I noted in my research, this is a common problem - most academic experts still don't understand how Wikipedia works, and are unwilling to engage with our project directly. On the bright side, I managed to interest him in the WP:SUP idea, so if we are lucky, maybe we will see some students of his editing Wikipedia. I also suggested that he contacts his local Wikipedia community (IIRC he teaches in Ottawa? There should be a big group there [5]), so once the current social distancing issues are solved, maybe we will be able to figure out some way he or his students could aid us directly. As I noted in my article in GW, throughout almost two decades of Wikipedia history we have had not a single professional historian edit the Polish-Jewish history area. We don't need conspiracy theories to explain the problems here - most of the content was created by amateurs who have big trouble finding reliable sources, and desperately needs cleanup; a lot of the text is either unreferenced or referenced to newspapers if not worse. Of course, this is a wider problem, as GA+ level content forms <1% of our articles and we know that probably a quarter to half of GA+ content is not up to best standard anyway and needs a GA/FA review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
You alerted us to this on 1 March but only by saying Grabowski had complained about his BLP on a Facebook page, which you couldn't link to: "In a recent social media commentary (hard to link facebook comments) he called his biography here 'terrible' and 'scandalous'."
Why didn't you tell us at that point that he'd had an article published? Then we learned that you had replied to him on 12 March, in the same Polish newspaper, naming me as the main author of his BLP:

Na koniec prof. Grabowski zarzuca, że w jego biogramie był błąd o korzeniach jego rodziny. Jego polskości żaden ze znanych mi wolontariuszy nie ma najmniejszego zamiaru podważać. Nieuźródłowione informacje o białorusko-ukraińskim pochodzeniu matki profesora zostały dodane przez użytkownika bez zarejestrowanego konta i usunięte w ciągu trzech tygodni przez główną autorkę tego hasła, wolontariuszkę SlimVirgin. System działa, a prof. Grabowski mógłby podziękować jej za usunięcie tego wandalizmu. Chyba, że to też "polska nacjonalistka"?

As you know, I'm not the main author. I did make a lot of edits to it in a short space of time to try to fix it, but most of my edits weren't retained. It was very misleading to say that, and it meant I was mentioned by you in a Polish national newspaper without you telling me, and in a way that seemed intended to take the wind out of Grabowski's sails—something else he was wrong about, thinking his article had been written by Polish nationalists. But he's right about that article: it's in poor shape, not something I want to have attributed to me, and it has indeed been edited by people who seemed not to like him.
As for the state of the Polish Holocaust articles, the problem is advocacy, poor sourcing practices, reverting, and walls of text on talk when people object. Academic historians will not be willing to engage with it. SarahSV (talk) 07:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm with Sarah on this. I've "sunk" much of my time in the last two years into this TA, including the (overly long) ArbCom case. As of my last count, at least eight editors have been banned or blocked due to their involvement in the TA, six of which from the group mentioned by Grabowski.
Sarah mentions "walls of text", and some would argue Piotrus's comment above is one such example. Personally I'm not scared of reading, so I'll summarise it for you: it's irrelevant. Piotrus writes about his area of expertise - Wikipedia - while the rest of us are concerned with Grabowski's area of expertise, which is Holocaust history and Polish-Jewish relations. Here the encyclopedia is lacking, and one needn't be a Wikipedia expert to know it François Robere (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I'll point out that I have zilch motivation to step into the minefield. The few times I've done so, it's been so unpleasant that it would make editing in American politics seem like a walk in the park. I actually have most of the sources in English, I have the training as a historian, and I do think it needs disinterested editors (i.e. editors who don't have the ethnic background in the conflict) but ... why? Why would I subject myself to that, when I have an insanely long list of things I want to get done on wikipedia. And honestly, editing the main Holocaust article has been much more rewarding and useful. If the whole area of Poland in the Holocaust wasn't so filled with sockhunting, reverting, and use of crappy sources, I might be glad to improve the articles, but the editors whining that people like Grabowski are maligning wikipedia's coverage of the subject area might want to take on board why someone like me hasn't touched the area seriously. --Ealdgyth (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
An issue I've noticed is that citations are rarely written correctly in this area. For example, the editors cite the editors of an edited volume, not the author(s) or book chapters, which suggests they're getting everything from a Google preview/snippet view of one page and don't even look at the top of the page to see that it has a title. Page numbers are often missing. I've been wondering whether to ask ArbCom to add to the special sourcing requirements that citations must be written properly. It may seem like fiddling while Rome burns, but introducing more precision would make source-text checks a lot easier. SarahSV (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Another thing I want to mention, in case Jan Grabowski is seen as just one historian with a point of view—when his work was criticized by a nationalist group in 2017, an open letter circulated in his defence signed by prominent Holocaust historians. See "Solidarity with Jan Grabowski". michael-wildt.de. 19 June 2017.
Signatories included Omer Bartov, Yehuda Bauer, Doris Bergen, Randolph L. Braham, Christopher Browning, Deborah Dwork, David Engel, Michael Fleming, Mary Fulbrook, Christian Gerlach, Jan T. Gross, Peter Hayes, Deborah Lipstadt, Michael R. Marrus, Jürgen Matthäus, Antony Polonsky, Sybille Steinbacher, Dan Stone, Robert Jan van Pelt, and Piotr Wróbel. If these historians trust Grabowski's work, then we need to take very seriously what Grabowski says about ours. SarahSV (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
You realize you are preaching the to the choir here? In my polemic to Grabowski, I even state in my concluding remarks that he deserves an apology for some unfair treatment he received in Poland, related to the incident you mention. It Is no wonder many prominent historians signed such a letter when he was accused of misconduct by fringe nationalists, I would have done so myself. That however does not mean he is beyond criticism, and some reviews of his work raise interesting questions about whether his methodology could use improvement. And he very much has a point of view; if he didn't, he wouldn't have attracted so much attention, positive or otherwise. Anyway, in my published polemic with Grabowski, as Francois noted, I indeed focused on my area of expertise (not as a volunteer but as a scholar of new media). What I criticized him was for his obvious lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works which led to him adhering to conspiracy theories about our project (invented by now indef-banned Icewhiz, dismissed by ArbCom) as early as the Haaretz piece last year, as well as for his disparaging attitude towards our project and volunteers, neither of which he does seem to hold in much respect (in his conclusion he suggests readers would be better served by a 19th-century encyclopedia than Wikipedia...). Sadly, the real world doesn't have such useful policies as CIV/NPA/AGF, which can certainly use more adhering on Wikipedia, per Ealdgyth's comments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
By implying that those historians supported him only because he was attacked by fringe nationalists, you're undermining him again. Why not accept that they supported him because they trust his work?
He criticized the articles he mentioned because of factual errors and poor use of sources. That situation is very widespread in the area of Polish-Jewish relations during the Holocaust.
Why didn't you tell us in your post of 1 March that he'd had an article published, rather than just a Facebook post? And why did you write in your reply to the newspaper that I was the main author of his BLP? Vanamonde, if you're prefer that this discussion happen elsewhere, please say. SarahSV (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I can't speak for their motivations, but again, I don't doubt many consider his work valuable, but the letter was published in a specific context related to, as you said yourself, "when his work was criticized by a nationalist group in 2017". I feel we are splitting the hair here, for no good reason I can see, since we all agree that "He criticized the articles he mentioned because of factual errors and poor use of sources. That situation is very widespread in the area of Polish-Jewish relations during the Holocaust." Nobody, in fact, disagrees with this claim. As for my post on 1 March, I reported his article elsewhere a few days ago, so it probably just slipped my mind there and/or seemed irrelevant. And as for you being the main author, IIRC this is the conclusion I drew from using some tool-lab analysis which probably overestimated edit count or such. Clearly, if you think you are not the main author, you are correct. Would you like me to contact the newspaper and see if they will redact this? Btw, on the subject of the main authorship, I was the author of the first stub of the biography about him, and I do want to thank you for reverting the IP vandalism he mentioned, and for doing a copy/edit of the article. Anyway, I agree this discussion is pointless, as I feel we all agree that the articles in this topic area need major improvement. How about we spend our time improving them instead of WP:NOTFORUM-chat here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
From from being pointless, this discussion is important because editors with some knowledge of the Holocaust can't face working on a subset of Holocaust articles. Something has to change about that situation.
Re: "As for my post on 1 March, I reported his article elsewhere a few days ago, so it probably just slipped my mind there and/or seemed irrelevant." It doesn't make any sense to mention a Facebook post and not a newspaper article. And naming me in your post, again as the main editor. I didn't bother to correct it at that point because I didn't realize that it mattered, but it was after that that you wrote your reply to the newspaper. You could have told me what you were planning to do. I feel as though you used me. SarahSV (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
A quick note to say I've seen this and am not ignoring it, but need more time to respond; likely tomorrow. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry you feel that way. As I said recently, I also feel hurt by some of your recent comments. May I politely suggest we both take a breather on this, try to avoid commenting about one another for a while, and then resume interacting without bringing past issues and that we try assuming good faith about one another? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
That's precisely that mustn't happen. This is not a personal dispute between you and me. This is a long-term dispute between you and the Wikipedia community. The situation at Stanislaw Kot has revealed it clearly, where you're arguing that material by Holocaust historians, including two books published by Cambridge University Press, is FRINGE and UNDUE. That's a misuse of the policies and guidelines.
There are several ways to resolve this. We can go to AE or ArbCom, or we can try to resolve it without the big sticks. Are you willing to try the latter?
By the way, at Kot if you want to use {{sfn}}, you have to retain the long citation once, whether in the text or in a separate "Works cited" section. In this diff, you removed the long ref. The one you called ref name=":6" needs to be restored. If you're going to use {{sfn}}, you should add this to User:Piotrus/common.js: importScript('User:Smith609/citations.js'); // Backlink: User:Smith609/citations.js. That will produce an error message if you inadvertently add a short citation without a corresponding long one. SarahSV (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Dear Sarah, I suggested above how to "resolve it without the big sticks". Please stop with WP:NPA and please assume good faith towards me. There is no "long-term dispute between me and the Wikipedia community". I have not been a party to any Arbitration proceeding in about a decade, nor have I been a subject to any relevant AE or AN(I) complaint in that time that I can recall (and I also don't file complains about others since I belive assuming good faith and working with others is usually sufficient). That does, however, require a willingness to compromise. At Kot article, you have proposed some new sources and after gathering input from other editors, while I remain unconvinced this is correct in light of UNDUE, in the spirit of compromise and consensus-building I have expanded the article with them. I am trying to meet you halfway, without making any claims about you as that would violate NPA and such. In the last few days, you have however made several claims about my person, including the one just above, I find hurtful, unfair, and in violation of our policies. I asked you before to refactor and apologize for them, but you ignore my requests and persist in targeting me with new accusations that are only conducive to creating WP:BATTLEGROUND. So indeed, "a personal dispute between you and me" is exactly what we are having, and in my post just above I proposed a way to de-escalate the situation. If I have made any comment about you that you consider problematic, I will be happy to refactor it and apologize for it. Please focus on discussing the content, not your fellow editors. Since clearly we have difficulty talking to one another, and my proposal for WP:DISENGAGE above was ignored, maybe one of the editors active here @El C, Ealdgyth, and Vanamonde93: or familiar with both of our edits in this topic area from the last few weeks @Chumchum7 and Nihil novi: would offer to mediate? I certainly respect you as an editor, and I assume good faith towards your edits, and I only ask for likewise attitude towards myself. PS. Thank you for your advice on code and referencing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Sarah isn't wrong to have this impression, Piotrus. Over time you defended some pretty questionable sources, like Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, Krzysztof Jasiewicz, Ewa Kurek and "Mark Paul", to name a few. Usually when when brought to the attention of the broader community, they fell through. And now we're at Kot... WP:AGF has nothing to do with it, it's just a statement of fact. François Robere (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm getting an impression that this is less about sources, and more about an antipathy of some users towards Piotrus. Anyone venturing to the talk page of Stanisław Kot article can see that Piotrus is open towards improving the article, and listening to the feedback from others, particularly SlimVirgin. Others just criticize without helping in the article mainspace. He's tried numerous times to engage others to chip in, and edit the article. No one really acted on that call. Instead no additions and edits he makes are good enough for some. Where is the end of road here? When the article fails the GA nomination? When Piotrus finally gives up on editing this project? Or when every single article on Polish people living in the 20th century has a proper section on "ugly things they once said about Jews"? - Darwinek (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
You're misreading, sir. Piotrus is certainly the most qualified of the "pro-Polish" editors, and I've had many productive interactions with him over the last two years; but his approach to sourcing confounds me. He views all sources as "biased but legit", which loans to a false equivalence between right wing extremists and mainstream scholars (it's even more puzzling when you consider Piotrus is a professional academic, and probably wouldn't apply the same approach in his published works).
As for Kot: we've had similar discussions may times before (see links above). This time I'm content with Sarah's edits, so I'm keeping to Talk. Why is that bad?
As for GA: no one wants an article to fail GA, but Piotrus did not file this properly. Issues with Kot were raised on March 27th;[6] the following day Piotrus rewrote this otherwise dormant article,[7] then immediately filed for GA.[8] This isn't how one writes a GA, but it is how one wins an argument about a questionable source.
Oh, an one last note: when every single article on Polish people... has a proper section on "ugly things they once said about Jews"? I find it notable and worthy of inclusion that Kot, the Minister of the Interior of the Polish Government in Exile, says while the Holocaust was taking place that "the Jews are a foreign element" and that "they should go elsewhere". I'm sorry if my sensitivities offend you. François Robere (talk) 09:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @SlimVirgin, Piotrus, El C, and Ealdgyth: Apologies for taking this long to respond. Sarah, I'm sympathetic to your concerns. I've spent a while writing about south Asian history and politics, which is just as much of a minefield; and trying to admin other areas with active ARBCOM sanctions. I followed the holocaust in Poland case from afar, and have commented on several related AE cases. But there's only so much one can do, and I'm not diving into this topic for the same reasons Ealdgyth has mentioned (I'm not keen on watching articles either; 88,000? Jesus Christ, El C, how do you sleep?). The best I can do is do a thorough job of reviewing the articles and disputes I choose to deal with. In this particular case, I've made it abundantly clear to Piotrus that Kot is not going to pass GAN without all the sources in question being summarized; some progress has been made, but it's not enough, yet. A proposal from you, Sarah, might help cut through the frustratingly cyclical discussion on the review page, but I can understand not wanting to get deeper into that mess. So, in short, I hear your concern, and if you went to ARBCOM I would probably contribute some thoughts; but I don't see that this GAR can do much to address the broader concerns, besides setting an example for how the source material needs to be treated. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
    • What is this sleep of which you speak? El_C 13:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Vanamonde, I can understand a reviewer asking that something be added and keeping the review open. The problem with that response is that it ignores what a serious policy violation it was (this was the version nominated; this when you began the review), and that this is hardly the only example. It also puts the onus on others to do the work for Piotrus's GAN/DYK, and it assumes that the rest of the article doesn't have similar problems. Now there's negotiating about what's the least that can be said. But perhaps you're right about setting an example for how source material needs to be treated. SarahSV (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
      • @SlimVirgin: I would draw a distinction between the content issue and the behavioral issue here. GAR is meant for fixing issues with articles; an article that violates NPOV can still pass if the issues are fixed during the process (I know you know this. I'm spelling it out for the record). Nominating an article that clearly fails a core policy can potentially be a behavioral issue (it isn't always; neutrality may creep in despite the nom being compentent and acting in good faith). I think such an issue needs to be dealt with, but not in a review, and not on a talk page. As such I don't think I'm ignoring anything, so much as trying very hard to compartmentalize. Also, I am not at all putting the onus on you to fix the issue; as I said, I understand if you don't want to do that, and it is not in any way your responsibility. It is merely an opportunity to show what a representative summary ought to be, which is what I meant by "setting an example". To be clear, if you do not wish to write the necessary content yourself, and no one else chooses to write it, I would have no qualms failing the GAR. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
After perusing this discussion, I was relieved and delighted to read Sarah's advice, above, on how to properly use the {{sfn}} function.
One thing that I have been noticing on this and other talk pages is the frequency of word duplications, word omissions, misspellings, and other typographical errors. They suggest haste, neglect of proof-reading, and feelings (sometimes not unreasonable) of being under attack.
Another thing that I have noticed concerns repetitiveness and loquacity.
Taking time to proof-read and to trim can alleviate all this and spare readers' time and mental energy.
I think it was G.B. Shaw who wrote a correspondent: "I apologize for writing at such length, but I did not have time to write something shorter."
Nihil novi (talk) 04:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Pascal, not Shaw.
Everything CE-related has already been discussed ad nauseum, and even brought to AE. I would appreciate your support if we have to deal with it again.
Regarding {{sfn}} - I proposed using the similar {{r}} template back in April 2018. Apparently it was "ugly".[9] François Robere (talk) 11:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vanamonde93/Archive_34&oldid=1141352740"